Re: Ada to C++ translator?

["Ken Garlington" <Ken.Garlington@computer.org>]

"Marin David Condic" <mcondic.auntie.spam@acm.org> wrote in message
news:3A9809FD.D9194D0E@acm.org...
: Thanks for the enlightment. I think my only point was that subsets of Ada
existed
: back in '83 (or thereabouts) so there isn't something new allowed in Ada
that just
: became available. As I recall - some of the Ada subset compilers also had
the word
: "Ada" in them somewhere - nothing wrong with that. I recall the DoD simply
having a
: concern that someone could start peddaling what they called "Ada" only
without a
: full implementation. (There were dozens of compilers at the time that
called
: themselves "Pascal" with no two exactly alike. So what did it mean to call
a
: compiler a "Pascal" compiler?) They wanted to be sure that if someone sold
you a
: compiler and called it "Ada" that it in fact implemented the whole of the
language.
: I don't think the situation is much different today - just maybe not as
formal.
: People still expect that if you label a compiler "Ada" that it has run the
: validation suite and implements the full language.

With a caveat that the term "full language" could mean (a) the Ada83
dialect, (b) some subset of the Ada95 annexes, or even (c) known cases where
a validation test fails.

The reality is that a vendor can hopefully tell you which tests will pass
for a given environment (compiler switches, etc.), as well as any known
deficiencies. You may or may not be able to derive something useful from
that information with regard to how much of the language is actually
implemented.